.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« By definition, if one observer expresses one truth and another observer expresses another, then these truths are not absolute but relative to the particular observer who utters them.»
.

Someone or something cannot be relative to himself or itself, Yuyutsu. The OED provides the following definition of the word “relative” as follows :

« something having, or standing in, some relation or connection to something else »

Allow me to suggest the following examples :

A basketball player is relatively tall compared to a footballer and a snake is relatively long compared to a frog.

As I indicated earlier, truth is simply the intention of the observer not to mislead anyone. So long as he respects this rule to the best of his ability, he is expressing what he considers to be the absolute truth – even if what he expresses does not correspond to reality.

The fact is, the best we human beings can do is to express our own personal interpretation of reality – and each one of us may interpret reality differently from every other human being – which is why there is no such thing as THE truth. There are as many truths as there are observers – and if they are all perfectly honest then it can possibly be said that there are as many absolute truths as there are observers.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that each and every observer has expressed what he considers to be the absolute truth, there is no guarantee that any of them have correctly and completely described reality.

Truth is subjective (existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought – OED) and reality is objective ( being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject – OED).

Truth depends solely on the observer and on the observer alone. It is the sincere and honest expression of his personal interpretation of reality, to the best of his ability.

.

Dear Banjo,

The truth you speak about is fine, but is not only relative to the people who say it and their circumstances but also relative to its purpose.

We have the number PI. It cannot be fully expressed because it has an infinite number of digits with not even a recurring pattern, but saying:
PI = 3.14159265359
is fit enough for most of its uses, so at most times we can say that the above is true, yet there are some rare scientific applications that require even more accuracy, so for them the above would be false, whereas they may consider
PI = 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510
to be the truth - but every mathematician will admit that even that, is still only a relative truth, relative to purpose.

Another example: suppose someone is asked "how are you?" and despite having difficulty to walk, some dizziness and shortness of breath they say "I am fine.": Are they saying the truth? Well that is relative to their circumstances - if they told so to a policeman who questions their ability to drive, then it would be a lie, but if they just came out of hospital and the person they speak to knows that they were hospitalised, then their response would be truthful, a relative truth, relative to how they were a few days ago with their life on the balance.

So the intention of an observer not to mislead anyone can indeed, for practical purposes, be considered "truth" in most circumstances - that quality can also be referred to as "transactional truth" because it is useful and sufficient in supporting honest human transactions in everyday life.

Yet it is insufficient for describing Reality.

I am not claiming that any human expression could ever describe Reality in full - that is not possible, but suppose it were possible, then and only then we could call that expression "absolute truth".

If that were possible, then since Reality is the same for everyone and at all times and circumstances, it follows that absolute truth can only be one.

Dear Yuyutsu,

The fact that we cannot express the infinite number of digits that comprise pi but must truncate them at some point is not a relative truth. It is an approximation which is not the same thing as a relative truth. However we need not express pi as a series of numbers. The equation C/D=Pi where C is the circumference of a circle and D is the diameter of the circle expresses the relationship. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/ contains the idea of relative truth.

Dear David F.,

Interesting to see that Western philosophers also came up with the concept of relative truth - that concept is well established in Hindu philosophy.

«The fact that we cannot express the infinite number of digits that comprise pi but must truncate them at some point is not a relative truth.»

That is a fact, but not what I referred to in my example.
The relative truth in my example is that
PI = 3.14159265359
rather than the undisputed fact that we must truncate the number of digits.

That truth of that particular statement depends on the required accuracy, but relative truths can also depend on so many other things. It is more difficult to see, for example, how the truth you mentioned, of "C/D=Pi", is also relative, yet it depends on the existence of perfect circles. Have you ever seen a perfect circle? I didn't. Without a C and a D, that statement is not true - in real life's imperfect circles, this ratio is always slightly different.

Almost every truth we know, is relative to something or another.
There is nothing wrong about it, it just means that that truth is not absolute.

Dear Yuyutsu,

An approximation and a relative truth are not the same thing.

Dear David F.,

«An approximation and a relative truth are not the same thing.»

I agree: approximations, when the word "approximately" is not used or implied, are just one particular class of relative truths, one of many. They are true relative to the condition that no accurate (or more accurate) information is required under the practical circumstances.

And when the word "approximately" IS used, still some other implicit condition(s) likely make the truth of the statement only relatively true.

For example, "water boils at approximately 100 degrees Celsius".

Yes, that statement is true, but only relatively true, relative to the water being on planet earth and approximately at sea level.